The Obama administration is using regulatory controls in place of legislation in many areas. By moving traditionally legislative actions into the executive branch, President Obama does not need to depend on a Congress that may not be able to produce the laws needed to force his progressive agenda on the whole of America. What he has failed to recognize is that the approach has a major flaw that could leave his legacy .. empty.
The latest of Obama’s regulatory pushes is the EPA’s push to limit CO2 by stretching the intent of the clean air act to illogical extents. By simply “declaring” carbon dioxide, the same element in human exhalation, a pollutant, the executive branch agency can create legally enforceable regulations that can limit anything that produces, and perhaps consumes, the life-giving molecule.
The U.S. House of Representatives voted on H.R. 910 last month in response to the administration’s dictator-like actions. The Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011 is a bill that would prohibit the EPA Administrator from regulating carbon dioxide. It passed the house 255-172, but will likely die in the progressive-heavy Senate. The executive branch trumps the legislative – what happened to checks and balances?
In April, CDN reported on the EPA’s successful maneuver to block Shell Oil from drilling in the arctic sea. As the article shows, EPA head Lisa Jackson and her band of progressive extremists didn’t use the law, didn’t even try to fight the actual act of drilling – they killed the project because of the CO2 emissions of a single ship.
The EPA’s appeals board ruled that Shell had not taken into consideration emissions from an ice-breaking vessel when calculating overall greenhouse gas emissions from the project. Environmental groups were thrilled by the ruling. (emphasis mine)
Right out of Saul Alisnky’s teachings the EPA uses ridiculous guidelines, that no one could possibly follow, to grind the American business machine into the ground.
Where the Obama team has been short-sighted is in thinking that this tactic will create lasting change. By relying on the executive branch’s authority, all one needs to do to reverse it is .. that’s right .. change the executive.
If Kathlene Sebelius uses regulation to define a market-killing health care system, whomever the next president chooses to replace her will undo it. Which will effectively render the law worthless precisely because it relies too heavily on regulatory authority and not enough on legislative backing.
This will apply to the EPA’s overreach on CO2, health care regulation and anything else the Obama administration dreams up. This is up to the will of the people. The founders of our nation may just have been even more wise than we have or can imagine.
To amend the Clean Air Act to prohibit the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency from promulgating any regulation concerning, taking action relating to, or taking into consideration the emission of a greenhouse gas to address climate change, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011’.
SEC. 2. NO REGULATION OF EMISSIONS OF GREENHOUSE GASES.
Title III of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7601 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:
‘SEC. 330. NO REGULATION OF EMISSIONS OF GREENHOUSE GASES.
‘(1) Water vapor.
‘(2) Carbon dioxide.
‘(4) Nitrous oxide.
‘(5) Sulfur hexafluoride.
‘(8) Any other substance subject to, or proposed to be subject to, regulation, action, or consideration under this Act to address climate change.
‘(A) IN GENERAL- The Administrator may not, under this Act, promulgate any regulation concerning, take action relating to, or take into consideration the emission of a greenhouse gas to address climate change.
‘(B) AIR POLLUTANT DEFINITION- The definition of the term ‘air pollutant’ in section 302(g) does not include a greenhouse gas. Notwithstanding the previous sentence, such definition may include a greenhouse gas for purposes of addressing concerns other than climate change.
‘(A) Notwithstanding paragraph (4)(B), implementation and enforcement of the rule entitled ‘Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards’ (as published at 75 Fed. Reg. 25324 (May 7, 2010) and without further revision) and finalization, implementation, enforcement, and revision of the proposed rule entitled ‘Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles’ published at 75 Fed. Reg. 74152 (November 30, 2010).
‘(B) Implementation and enforcement of section 211(o).
‘(C) Statutorily authorized Federal research, development, demonstration programs and voluntary programs addressing climate change.
‘(D) Implementation and enforcement of title VI to the extent such implementation or enforcement only involves one or more class I substances or class II substances (as such terms are defined in section 601).
‘(E) Implementation and enforcement of section 821 (42 U.S.C. 7651k note) of Public Law 101-549 (commonly referred to as the ‘Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990’).
‘(A) ‘Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases’, published at 74 Fed. Reg. 56260 (October 30, 2009).
‘(B) ‘Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act’, published at 74 Fed. Reg. 66496 (December 15, 2009).
‘(C) ‘Reconsideration of Interpretation of Regulations That Determine Pollutants Covered by Clean Air Act Permitting Programs’, published at 75 Fed. Reg. 17004 (April 2, 2010) and the memorandum from Stephen L. Johnson, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator, to EPA Regional Administrators, concerning ‘EPA’s Interpretation of Regulations that Determine Pollutants Covered by Federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permit Program’ (December 18, 2008).
‘(D) ‘Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule’, published at 75 Fed. Reg. 31514 (June 3, 2010).
‘(E) ‘Action To Ensure Authority To Issue Permits Under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program to Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Finding of Substantial Inadequacy and SIP Call’, published at 75 Fed. Reg. 77698 (December 13, 2010).
‘(F) ‘Action To Ensure Authority To Issue Permits Under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program to Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Finding of Failure To Submit State Implementation Plan Revisions Required for Greenhouse Gases’, published at 75 Fed. Reg. 81874 (December 29, 2010).
‘(G) ‘Action to Ensure Authority To Issue Permits Under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program to Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Federal Implementation Plan’, published at 75 Fed. Reg. 82246 (December 30, 2010).
‘(H) ‘Action to Ensure Authority to Implement Title V Permitting Programs Under the Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule’, published at 75 Fed. Reg. 82254 (December 30, 2010).
‘(I) ‘Determinations Concerning Need for Error Correction, Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval, and Federal Implementation Plan Regarding Texas Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program’, published at 75 Fed. Reg. 82430 (December 30, 2010).
‘(J) ‘Limitation of Approval of Prevention of Significant Deterioration Provisions Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in State Implementation Plans’, published at 75 Fed. Reg. 82536 (December 30, 2010).
‘(K) ‘Determinations Concerning Need for Error Correction, Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval, and Federal Implementation Plan Regarding Texas Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program; Proposed Rule’, published at 75 Fed. Reg. 82365 (December 30, 2010).
‘(L) Except for actions listed in paragraph (2), any other Federal action under this Act occurring before the date of enactment of this section that applies a stationary source permitting requirement or an emissions standard for a greenhouse gas to address climate change.
‘(I) is not federally enforceable;
‘(II) is not deemed to be a part of Federal law; and
‘(III) is deemed to be stricken from the plan described in clause (ii)(I) or the program or permit described in clause (ii)(II), as applicable.
‘(I) is contained in a State implementation plan under section 110 and authorizes or requires a limitation on, or imposes a permit requirement for, the emission of a greenhouse gas to address climate change; or
‘(II) is part of an operating permit program under title V, or a permit issued pursuant to title V, and authorizes or requires a limitation on the emission of a greenhouse gas to address climate change.
‘(i) RULE- Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), any provision described in clause (ii)–
‘(ii) PROVISION DEFINED- For purposes of clause (i), the term ‘provision’ means any provision that–
‘(A) NO LIMITATION- This section does not limit or otherwise affect the authority of a State to adopt, amend, enforce, or repeal State laws and regulations pertaining to the emission of a greenhouse gas.
‘(C) ACTION BY ADMINISTRATOR- The Administrator may not approve or make federally enforceable any provision described in subparagraph (B)(ii).’.
‘(2) EXCEPTIONS- Paragraph (1) does not prohibit the following:
‘(3) INAPPLICABILITY OF PROVISIONS- Nothing listed in paragraph (2) shall cause a greenhouse gas to be subject to part C of title I (relating to prevention of significant deterioration of air quality) or considered an air pollutant for purposes of title V (relating to permits).
‘(4) CERTAIN PRIOR AGENCY ACTIONS- The following rules and actions (including any supplement or revision to such rules and actions) are repealed and shall have no legal effect:
‘(5) STATE ACTION-
‘(a) Definition- In this section, the term ‘greenhouse gas’ means any of the following:
‘(b) Limitation on Agency Action-
SEC. 3. PRESERVING ONE NATIONAL STANDARD FOR AUTOMOBILES.
Section 209(b) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7543) is amended by adding at the end the following:
‘(4) With respect to standards for emissions of greenhouse gases (as defined in section 330) for model year 2017 or any subsequent model year new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines–
‘(A) the Administrator may not waive application of subsection (a); and
‘(B) no waiver granted prior to the date of enactment of this paragraph may be construed to waive the application of subsection (a).’.
SEC. 4. SENSE OF CONGRESS.
(1) there is established scientific concern over warming of the climate system based upon evidence from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level;
(2) addressing climate change is an international issue, involving complex scientific and economic considerations;
(3) the United States has a role to play in resolving global climate change matters on an international basis; and
(4) Congress should fulfill that role by developing policies that do not adversely affect the American economy, energy supplies, and employment.
It is the sense of the Congress that–
Passed the House of Representatives April 7, 2011.
H. R. 910
To amend the Clean Air Act to prohibit the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency from promulgating any regulation concerning, taking action relating to, or taking into consideration the emission of a greenhouse gas to address climate change, and for other purposes KAREN L. HAAS,
On April 25, 2011 Shell Oil Corporation announced it was dropping it’s efforts to drill for oil in the Arctic Sea off the northern coast of Alaska. This decision comes after 5 long years of jumping through the governmental hoops of massive regulations, careful, tedious exploration and the expense of investing over 4 billion dollars in the project. So just what caused Shell to accept the massive monetary losses and drop the project? Was it due to the fact that they couldn’t find enough oil there to make a profit? Apparently that is not the case, as there are an estimated 27 billion barrels of oil just sitting there waiting for extraction. Could Shell’s reason for dropping a 4 billion dollar project be that there is no demand for all of that oil in the U.S. today? With current gasoline prices over $4.00 a gallon across the nation that hardly seems like a valid reason to not extract that domestic oil in the Arctic Sea. Supply and demand are what drive gasoline prices, no matter who tells you anything different.
So why is Shell being forced to accept 4 billion dollars in losses in pulling out it’s drilling operations in the Arctic Sea near Alaska? The answer to that question can be found in 3 simple little letters: EPA , as in the infamous Environmental Protection Agency. Just do not try to get an exact answer from Obama appointee Lisa Jackson, the current EPA administrator, as she refuses to answer phone calls or emails to explain this ludicrous decision by her four radical Democrats on the board that denied an “air quality permit” for Shell to drill in the region. So much for accountability in our government once again from an Obama appointee. They have a pattern of making radical decisions, and then refusing to explain them to the very people who pay their salaries. I offer this article from FoxNews as proof of just who is behind this ludicrous decision, and how they refuse to tell the people why they have made such a blatantly extreme decision.
The EPA’s appeals board ruled that Shell had not taken into consideration emissions from an ice-breaking vessel when calculating overall greenhouse gas emissions from the project. Environmental groups were thrilled by the ruling. (emphasis mine)
After 5 years and 4 billion dollars, the Democratic extremists on a panel for the EPA have denied the extraction of 27 billion barrels of our very own oil for… wait for it…the fact that ice-breaking vessels burn fuel, and therefor emit pollution. Does this mean that every ship traveling in our waters will be shut down also because they all burn fuel of one type of the other. No, this only means that the evil capitalists at Shell Oil will be stopped from producing millions of dollars of oil for U.S. consumption because they ‘gasp’ did not include the emissions from the ice breaking ships in their total environmental impact figures for air quality control. If crab fishermen in Alaska get stuck in the ice this year, does this mean that the ice breaking ships will be told to let them sit there and freeze to death until Lisa Jackson’s radical EPA board checks their emission statements too? There is no difference there. These people on this EPA board, including Lisa Jackson are extreme activists, hypocrites and liars, period. From the prior linked Foxnews article we see who they really are:
The EPA did not return repeated calls and e-mails. The Environmental Appeals Board has four members: Edward Reich, Charles Sheehan, Kathie Stein and Anna Wolgast. All are registered Democrats and Kathie Stein was an activistattorney for the Environmental Defense Fund. Members are appointed by the EPA administrator. Alaska’s Republican senator thinks it’s time to make some changes. (emphasis mine)
There you have it, an EPA board which includes an appointed political activist lawyer, all of them Democrats, has denied Shell Oil the rights to extract the oil in the Arctic Sea due solely to the emissions of the ice breaking ships. Will Lisa Jackson and this board write the refund check to Shell oil for the billions of dollars they are out of due to this environmental extremist board’s decision ? No I,m not talking about a check drawn on the taxpayers account here, but instead a personal check drawn on the accounts of these five people who bear responsibility for this nonsense. Maybe that would make them think twice before trying a politically motivated stunt like this the next time they get asked to make a decision that will affect every single tax paying American citizen.
Steve Maley, over at Redstate.com also makes a very good point about the main agenda behind this decision here, in which he shows us the ultimate motive behind this action, shutting down the Alaska Pipeline:
But the real motivation, the real prize, is the Trans Alaska Pipeline System. The design throughput of the pipe is in excess of 2 million barrels of oil per day; recent throughput is around 600,000 barrels per day. At some limiting rate (I’ve heard 200,000 barrels per day), the cost to operate the line will exceed the value of operating it, and it will be shut down. Pipeline shut-down is the ultimate goal of the environmental movement. Not just ANWR, but any new development must be stopped so that TAPS dies an early and unnatural death.
Since the U.S. House of Representatives recently voted to de-fund the domestic terrorists over at the EPA, only to be denied by the career politicians in the U.S. Senate, I think we need to remember these Senate tyrants in 2012, and replace them with some people who will actually protect U.S. citizens from this kind of blatant abuse of power.
The National Petrochemical & Refiners Association joined with the International Liquid Terminals Association and the Western States Petroleum Association to file a law suit intended to overturn a recent regulatory overreach by the Obama Administration.
The E15 Proposal and Granted Waiver
In March of 2009, Growth Energy and several other alternative fuels organizations petitioned the EPA to have E15 introduced for use in vehicles not specifically modified to deal with the caustic nature of ethyl alcohol (ethanol). In October, the Environmental Protection Agency bowed to the corn-to-fuel lobby and granted a partial waiver allowing for the use of E15 (15%) ethanol fuels in all vehicles newer than 2007.
Misfueling, the accidental fueling of a vehicle with the incorrect fuel, is a serious concern. The cost to repair a fuel system once ethanol has done its damage is considerable. The EPA web site mentions that they are working on a way to reduce misfueling, but they aren’t holding this waiver until that solution is drawn up.
..the EPA is concurrently issuing a proposed rule with the express purpose of reducing the potential for misfueling of E15 into vehicles, engines, and products for which it is not approved. If finalized, this rule will satisfy the misfueling mitigation conditions of today’s partial waiver.
The Next Step for the EPA is Older Vehicles
The EPA waiver also discusses 2001-2006 vehicles.
EPA is deferring a decision on MY2001-2006 light-duty motor vehicles. DOE is in the process of conducting additional catalyst durability testing that will provide data regarding MY2001-2006 motor vehicles. The DOE testing is scheduled to be completed by the end of November 2010. EPA will make the DOE test results available to the public and consider the results and other available data and information in making a determination on E15 for use in those model year motor vehicles.
Problems With Ethanol 15 and higher
Only catalyst durability testing? That will only prove whether or not the fuel is stable. What about engine durability testing? While ethanol’s instability is certainly a concern, fuel system components made for gasoline do not react well with corn-alcohol (ethanol). A 50% increase in the amount of ethanol in fuels will cause failure of fuel hosing, pumps, seals and possibly injection/carbeuration. An article at Hagerty.com relays the problem that ethanol presents to older vehicles:
Corrosion caused by contact between two dissimilar metals when the metals are in contact with an electrolyte, like ethanol. It looks like this.
Rubber components like fuel hoses, carburetor seals and gaskets, and fuel pump seals may be hardened, dissolved or distorted by contact with ethanol. This may lead to fuel leaks.
Ethanol holds water very readily and can expose fuel system components and steel gas tanks to rust. This is especially prevalent in boats.
Even low concentrations of ethanol have been shown to damage fiberglass fuel tanks. Ethanol dissolves the lining of fiberglass fuel tanks, often depositing a dark “sludge” inside marine engines causing costly damage. Eventually, fiberglass tanks dissolve until they fail, leaking fuel.
Metal parts, such as in-tank fuel pumps and carburetor floats, may be subject to pitting, rust or corrosion when in contact with ethanol blends.
The only way to prevent this damage is to replace fuel system components with ethanol-safe parts or buy a newer vehicle with the flex-fuel designation. Either way, Americans will be yet again saddled with the cost of the progressive agenda.
Having to upgrade your fuel system or buy a new car are expensive enough, but even according to the government site FuelEconomy.gov it’s evident that higher ethanol content will also have you paying even more for a gallon of fuel.
FFVs experience no loss in performance when operating on E85. However, since ethanol contains less energy per volume than gasoline, FFVs typically get about 25-30% fewer miles per gallon when fueled with E85.
So your 30 mpg turns to 20-23mpg on E85. Perhaps you only lose 3-4mpg with E15, but that’s after you just spent money to upgrade your fuel system or the entire car. Upgrade costs, lower mileage, and it will further increase the price pressure on corn as more corn fields are turned into fuel. That means the less-efficient, fuel-system destroying fuel will also cost more.
The Suit Against the EPA
It would be easy to look at the petroleum industry’s suit as a special interest protecting their profits. If that’s the position taken than one must also agree that Green Growth and tons of other corn-to-fuel businesses lobbied the EPA to put this waiver in place. It’s one fuel provider against another.
The real concern should be how the waiver was obtained. At least the petroleum industry lawyers are attacking the proper problem, regulatory overreach. While those involved in the suit will file written arguments in coming weeks, they had this much to say in a January 3rd press release:
NPRA and the other organizations today filed a petition asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to review and overturn the EPA decision, contending EPA violated the Clean Air Act and the Administrative Procedure Act.
The lawsuit by the groups will argue that EPA does not have authority under the Clean Air Act to approve a partial waiver that allows the use of E15 in some engines but not in others.
In addition, the lawsuit will contend that EPA based its partial waiver decision on new data submitted to the public rulemaking docket on the day before EPA announced the partial waiver, providing no time for the stakeholder review or meaningful public comment required under the Administrative Procedure Act.
This is exactly the same kind of circumvention of American law and process that the FCC used to put it’s tyrannical control of the internet in place. Perhaps the courts are the last hope to protect American citizens from a government bent on even more control.
Given that, regardless of where legislation stands, the EPA has been given unprecedented power and we are therefore under constant threat of Cap & Trade, I thought it was time to take a look at one of this administrations front runners for that agenda.
Meet Carol Browner who’s official title seems to be “Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change.” I was not able to find an official Bio for her on WhiteHouse.gov, but did finally turn up an office description:
White House Office of Energy and Climate Change
The Office of Energy and Climate Change is a newly-created office within The Executive Office of the President that works to support President Obama’s agenda on energy and climate change. The Office of Energy and Climate Change coordinates and works closely with a host of government agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Energy, the Department of Transportation, the Department of the Interior, and others. In addition, the Office of Energy and Climate Change works closely with a broad array of stakeholders to identify new opportunities to create green jobs and transition to a new clean energy economy.
In other words, the whole point of this office and position is to “transition” to green energy. Not green energy promotion or development, but green energy takeover. Let’s see what we can dig up on Mrs. Browner.
In this video, posted December 1st 2008, Mrs Browner makes quite a statement:
At 3:20 Joseph Romm: “She is on the Board of The Center for American Progress and has played a key role in shaping this organization reminding us always that the environment and Global Warming are first tier issues. She’s the key reason the center has been a leader on issues of clean energy and green recovery.”
At 4:12 Carol Browner: “As Joe mentioned, I am on the Board and have been on the Board of the Center for American Progress since it’s conception”
The Center for American Progress is a George Soros funded Left Wing Progressive Think Tank which has been behind many of the policies and staff choices of the Obama Administration. Although their website removed Carol Browner from their list of Staff & Fellows, She does still have a Bio there which states, “She is on the Board of the Directors of the Center for American Progress.”
Carol M. Browner was born in December 1955 in Miami, Florida. Both her parents were professors at Miami Dade Community College. In 1977 Browner received a bachelor’s degree in English from the University of Florida, and two years later she earned a J.D. degree from the University of Florida College of Law.
In 1980 and 1981, Browner was General Counsel for the Florida House of Representatives Committee on Government Operations. In 1983 she became associate director of the Ralph Nader-founded group Citizen Action in Washington, DC.
From 1986 to 1988, Browner served as chief legislative assistant to Democrat Senator Lawton Chiles of Florida; in this position, she worked to ban offshore oil-drilling near the Florida Keys. In 1989 she became legal counsel for the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
From 1988 to 1991, Browner was Legislative Director for Senator Al Gore. From 1991-93, she was Florida’s Secretary of Environmental Regulation.
After the 1992 presidential election, Browner served as transition director for Vice President-elect Gore. In December 1992, President-elect Bill Clinton named Browner as his choice to head the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); she was confirmed by the Senate on January 21, 1993.
In 1995Browner used her position at the EPA to lobby more than 100 grassroots environmental groups to oppose the Republican-led Congress, faxing out documents condemning the GOP’s regulatory initiatives. In a rare show of political unity, Republicans and Democrats alike impugned Browner, accusing her of violating the Anti-Lobbying Act. A stinging letter to Browner from a bipartisan subcommittee of the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee stated: “The concerted EPA actions appear to fit the definition of prohibited grass-roots lobbying … The prima facie case is strong that some EPA officials may have violated the criminal law.”
Browner headed the EPA throughout both terms of the Clinton presidency, making her the longest-serving Administrator in the agency’s history.
Bestselling author and political analyst Michelle Malkin reports that Browner, on her final day as Clinton EPA chief in 2001, ordered a computer technician to delete all her computer files, in direct violation of a federal judge’s order requiring the agency to preserve those files. When questioned about her actions, Browner claimed that her computer had contained no work-related material, and that she had merely purged the hard drive of such innocuous items as computer games — as a courtesy to incoming staffers of the Bush administration.
It was later learned that three additional high-ranking EPA officials had also violated the court order and erased their hard drives. Because of this, U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth held the EPA in contempt of court.
According to Manhattan Institute scholar Max Schulz, Browner “was the driving force behind the federal government’s effort to force General Electric Co. to spend $490 million to dredge New York’s Hudson River to rid it of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) that — because they were buried under layers of silt — posed no environmental harm.” Some of Browner’s employees ultimately faced criminal charges for falsifying evidence and tampering with lab results.
After her EPA tenure, Browner became a founding member of the Albright Group, a “global strategy” organization headed by former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright.
In 2006 Browner and her husband, Tom Downey, lobbied on behalf of Dubai Ports World, a United Arab Emirate-owned company, in its quest to take operational control of six major U.S. ports. They met with New York Senator Charles Schumer in an effort to minimize congressional opposition to the deal. Ultimately the deal fell apart.
Browner also served as a “commissioner” of the Socialist International (SI), the umbrella group for 170 “social democratic, socialist and labor parties” in 55 countries. SI’s “organizing document” cites capitalism as the cause of “devastating crises,” “mass unemployment,” “imperialist expansion,” and “colonial exploitation” worldwide. Browner worked on SI’s Commission for a Sustainable World Society, which contends that “the developed world must reduce consumption and commit to binding and punitive limits on greenhouse gas emissions.”
Browner, who has said that global warming is “the greatest challenge ever faced,” calls herself a “strong backer” of “utility decoupling.” Under “decoupling” policies, utility companies will be required to provide less energy, while the government guarantees the companies steady or increased profits through “taxpayer subsidies” and “voluntary” conservation measures.As author Kathy Shaidle puts it:
“In other words, taxpayers will be given grim Carter-era exhortations to put on sweaters rather than turn up the thermostat and be forced to pick up the tab for utility companies’ reduced earnings, while getting less energy in return.”
From December 2003 to January 2009, Browner served as Chair of the National Audubon Society. She is currently a Board member of the Alliance for Climate Protection (an organization founded by Al Gore in 2006); APX, Inc. (which specialzes in environmental commodities markets); the George Soros-funded Center for American Progress; and the League of Conservation Voters.
On January 22, 2009, President Obama named Browner as his choice for the post of Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change, popularly known as “Environment Czar.”
In her book Culture of Corruption, Michelle Malkin writes:
“By February 2009, [Browner] had already announced radical plans to declare carbon-dioxide emissions a danger to the public — a move that could potentially subject not just power and chemical plants, refineries, and vehicles, but also schools, hospitals, and any other emitters of carbon dioxide to costly new regulations and litigation.
So from her positions and previous actions I have reached the following conclusion, Carol Browner, a Socialist, feels she is above the law. She will do whatever it takes, the ends justify the means, to accomplish the goal of stopping all conventional forms of energy and forcing green options on the American people, all in the name of Climate Change.
Mrs Browner was very involved with the BP Oil Spill incident on behalf of the Obama Administration. It is because of what her involvement was during this disaster that I cannot call her an “Environment Czar”, the environment was neglected throughout the incident.
“No one in the administration will rest or be satisfied until the leak is stopped at the source, the oil in the Gulf is contained and cleaned up, and the people of this region are able to get back to their lives and livelihoods.”
But we all know this was not the case. Obama rested, while Carol Browner and the rest of the Administration looked for ways to exploit the incident. No one focused on adequate cleanup, no one focused on environmental stewardship, no one focused on containment. Here she is talking about disaster plans and dispersants.
She walks right over Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal’s requests for environmental protection measures without pause, but claims they are looking into it.
And then the Corexit question, a complete spin job that dispersants are helpful.
Instead of pushing for all available resources being sent to the Gulf and conducting round the clock cleanup operations, Carol Browner was behind the Oil Drilling Moriatorium:
The environment was not adequately protected. The ends justify the means?
She is also a big pusher of Carbon Capture, Carbon Trading, and enforcing Auto Emissions. It is her involvement in the fuel standards/auto emissions policy making that prompted the organization, Judicial Watch to sue for records:
In February, Judicial Watch filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Obama Department of Energy and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to obtain documents related to Ms. Browner (who holds the official title of Special Assistant on Energy and Climate) and her role in crafting official U.S. climate policy. Ms. Browner, who was never subjected to Senate confirmation, reportedly served as the Obama administration’s point person in secret negotiations to establish automobile emission standards in California and also participated in negotiations involving cap and trade legislation.
Through our FOIA request filed on December 28, 2009, we’re specifically seeking all records of communications, contacts, or correspondence between Browner and the Energy Department or the EPA concerning:
A. Negotiations and/or discussions among the auto industry, the State of California, and agencies of the United States with respect to fuel-standards/auto emissions for the time period between January 20, 2009, and June 1, 2009; and
B. Negotiations/discussions with respect to cap and trade legislation for the time period between June 1, 2009, and October 1, 2009.
The EPA has failed to respond to these requests in any manner. Subsequent to filing its lawsuit on February 18, Judicial Watch received a letter from the Energy Department (dated February 17) in which the agency denied that it even had any documents responsive to Judicial Watch’s FOIA requests. (I’m not sure I believe that!)
According to press reports, Ms. Browner instructed individuals involved in auto emissions negotiations to “put nothing in writing, ever.” The New York Times reported that Browner made every effort to “keep their discussions as quiet as possible.”
And here’s something else to make you nervous about Browner.
Her involvement in these important discussions is particularly troubling given her documented ties to the radical socialist organization Socialist International, which reportedly calls for “global governance” and advocates that wealthier nations should shrink their economies in order to address the climate change “crisis.”
According to Fox News, Browner’s name was “scrubbed” from the organization’s website once she became linked to the Obama administration, but evidence of her involvement (including a photo of Browner speaking to the group’s congress in Greece) remained.
So, here we have an unconfirmed Obama administration official conducting secret meetings and instructing participants to avoid producing a written record. This is the perfect storm of corruption: concentrated executive power with no congressional oversight and no transparency. And this stonewalling on the “Climate Czar” documents adds yet another chapter in the growing Climategate scandal.
Here again, just like the illegal deletion of records under the Clinton Administration, we can see how far this woman will go to hide the evidence of her radical moves, in the furtherance of her radical agenda. Don’t keep records, delete them, hide them, shred them, shhhh.
Clean Energy Leadership from the White House to Main Street
Last year we made the largest investment in the clean energy economy in our nation’s history, which is expected to create more than 700,000 jobs by the end of 2012. These are jobs not just in providing the parts and technology to create power from the wind or fuels from the land, but in manufacturing solar panels, in building the wires and mechanics behind our smart meters, in creating next generation batteries – the list goes on.
Other nations realize that the country that leads the clean energy economy will be the country that leads the 21st century global economy. The President is dedicated to making the United States that country – and is inspired by the small towns across rural America that provide the backbone for this effort. Towns like Macon and Fort Madison can be models around this country, and I’m confident one day we’ll look back to these places as some of the engines of this new clean energy future.
As extraordinary the work that towns like Macon and Fort Madison are doing, these plants can’t solve all our energy challenges alone. But their work is a key part of a comprehensive strategy to move us from an economy that runs on fossil fuels to one that relies on homegrown fuels and clean energy. And the President knows we can come together on this issue and pass comprehensive energy and climate legislation that will spur a new generation of clean energy industries, create good American jobs, and enhance our energy security.
I find the 700,000 job’s goal laughable because Mrs. Browner refuses to take into account the number of jobs her very intitiative seeks to destroy. The blog also shows that Mrs Browner is dedicated to this goal, no matter the price tag. And all her previous actions show she will carry it out, no matter the jobs lost, no matter the cost.